Gastric banding apparatus have provided an effective and substantially less invasive alternative to gastric bypass surgery and other conventional surgical weight loss procedures. Despite the positive outcomes of invasive weight loss procedures, such as gastric bypass surgery, it has been recognized that sustained weight loss can be achieved through a laparoscopically placed gastric band (e.g., the LAP-BAND® (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.) gastric band or the LAP BAND AP® (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, Calif.) gastric band). Generally, gastric bands are placed about the cardia, or upper portion, of a patient's stomach forming a stoma that restricts the food's passage into a lower portion of the stomach. When the stoma is of an appropriate size that is restricted by a gastric band, food held in the upper portion of the stomach may provide a feeling of satiety or fullness that discourages overeating.
The interface between the physician and the patient at any point post-operation is generally limited to the physician injecting or removing fluid via the access port implanted in the patient's body to further promote weight loss. Metrics such as volume, pressure and patient response (e.g., vomiting, nausea, poor weight loss, and the like) are monitored to determine appropriate band pressure and stoma size.
However, certain patients might not desire having an access port implanted, for instance, as the access port may be aesthetically unpleasing. Therefore, what is needed is an alternative obesity treatment system.
Some attempts have been made to provide for an alternative obesity treatment system. For example, Kagan, et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0148034, discloses a non-adjustable artificial stoma implant with a connection to a gastric sleeve as illustrated in FIG. 1A. However, the cuff and sleeve of Kagan, et al., is very complex and may require an invasive implantation/removal procedure. In addition, the cuff and sleeve of Kagan do not replicate an internal gastric band. More particularly, the cuff functions as an anchor for the malabsorptive gastric sleeve and does not assist the peristaltic bolus transport.
Laufer, et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0018389, discloses performing restriction via tissue plication with adjustability from technique as illustrated in FIG. 1B. However, performing restriction via tissue plication has been shown to encourage erosion and/or necrosis.
Stack, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 7,431,725, discloses forming plications and then coupling or seating medical devices against the plications as illustrated in FIG. 1C. However, such a system also suffers from the drawback of encouraging erosion and/or necrosis.
Shalon, et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0137891, discloses a passive GEJ implant for treatment of GERD as illustrated in FIG. 1D. However, the system of Shalon, et al., does not function to limit food transport into the stomach, but only discourages reflux from entering the esophagus to combat excessive GERD.
Taylor, et al., U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0243152, discloses stomach volume restriction via serosal constriction as illustrated in FIG. 1E. However, Taylor, et al., requires a very complex system which includes rotating inner and outer device layers.
However, neither of these provide for a self-adjusting esophageal dilation implant for the treatment of obesity, or related apparatus, methods or systems thereof.